USS Vengeance & Mass Destruction.

The reason MoS got ripped apart by many, many fans for something similiar is because the character of Superman is someone who has been shown for decades to do everything possible to avoid that kind of casualty, not stupidly add to the problem and not once, NOT ONCE, try to get the hell away from a mass population centre. MoS was a failure of character and that is why, to many fans, it was a failure as a film.

ID didn't suffer that because, as others have pointed out, ToS and every series in general has shown that the crew continues with the mission, then deals with the consequences and emotions after. It fits what has been done before. I would not be surprised if the next movie contained a lot of moments showing characters still dealing with the events that have happened. Even ID showed Spock dealing with what happened in 09.

It's a matter of being true to the franchise.. Star Trek was, in so many ways... MoS was simply a complete betrayal just to have "action".

First of all, MOS Superman has NO EXPERIENCE whatsoever. He's had no training, had NEVER been in a fight before, and was facing highly trained and battle hardened soldiers with superpowers bent on genocide two days after putting on the costume. I'm sorry, but he's going to make mistakes, that's what inexperience leads to. Arguing that he should instantly make all the right decisions is just ludicrous. Also, saying that he never tried to fly away is a gross simplification. He tries to fly up several times during the Smallville fight (if people had been paying attention, the they would have noticed that, and many did) and each time he gets pulled back down by Zod's forces. He COULDN'T fly away during the Metropolis battle because a. Zod had made it clear that his only goal by that point was to make Clark suffer by exterminating humanity, so if he had flown away, Zod would have killed everyone in the city instead of following him, and b. Zod never gave him the chance to fly away. Also, he surrenders himself twice to two different militaries in order to protect the people, spends years traveling the world helping people, that's how Lois tracked him to Smallville, and killed Zod to protect people. So please, spare me the whole "MOS was a betrayal of the character" speel because I'm not buying it.

Superman saved the human race from annihilation and was ready to come out in the open (hence Lois saying "welcome to the planet"). The Enterprise defeated Khan, Admiral Marcus was dead, and there is renewed optimism for the future. How did the heroes lose exactly?

Superman saved the human race from annihilation and was ready to come out in the open (hence Lois saying "welcome to the planet"). The Enterprise defeated Khan, Admiral Marcus was dead, and there is renewed optimism for the future. How did the heroes lose exactly?

Superman saved the human race from annihilation and was ready to come out in the open (hence Lois saying "welcome to the planet"). The Enterprise defeated Khan, Admiral Marcus was dead, and there is renewed optimism for the future. How did the heroes lose exactly?

I have no problems whatsoever with how it played out in Into Darkness*, but I do like Jeyl's idea that right before Vengeance hits SF if suddenly the Enterprise would have swooped into the scene and pushed Vengeance down into the Bay with a tractor beam and stopped it from hitting buildings, all you would need was a quick cut back to the Enterprise with Sulu saying, "Whew, that was close one - good work with the tractor beam." then the scenes thereafter could have played out roughly the same. (It plays in my mind pretty similarly to how Enterprise destroyed Narada's torpedoes so they wouldn't hit the Jellyfish in ST'09.)

* = fully realizing that the message was that if you train terrorists to be your soldiers by proxy, don't be too surprised when they fly things into your buildings

I have no problems whatsoever with how it played out in Into Darkness*, but I do like Jeyl's idea that right before Vengeance hits SF if suddenly the Enterprise would have swooped into the scene and pushed Vengeance down into the Bay with a tractor beam and stopped it from hitting buildings, all you would need was a quick cut back to the Enterprise with Sulu saying, "Whew, that was close one - good work with the tractor beam." then the scenes thereafter could have played out roughly the same. (It plays in my mind pretty similarly to how Enterprise destroyed Narada's torpedoes so they wouldn't hit the Jellyfish in ST'09.)

* = fully realizing that the message was that if you train terrorists to be your soldiers by proxy, don't be too surprised when they fly things into your buildings

Click to expand...

I think that would have killed the moment. One of the things that works for me with the scene is the contrast between the "It's a miracle" relief of the bridge crew and what comes next.

They're happy, they're relieved, they've done it again...and everything goes to hell in a handbasket: Kirk is died saving the ship, Khan lives and crashes Vengenace into the city. Just the sweet and bitter aspects of how it all plays out.

I have no problems whatsoever with how it played out in Into Darkness*, but I do like Jeyl's idea that right before Vengeance hits SF if suddenly the Enterprise would have swooped into the scene and pushed Vengeance down into the Bay with a tractor beam and stopped it from hitting buildings, all you would need was a quick cut back to the Enterprise with Sulu saying, "Whew, that was close one - good work with the tractor beam." then the scenes thereafter could have played out roughly the same. (It plays in my mind pretty similarly to how Enterprise destroyed Narada's torpedoes so they wouldn't hit the Jellyfish in ST'09.)

* = fully realizing that the message was that if you train terrorists to be your soldiers by proxy, don't be too surprised when they fly things into your buildings

Click to expand...

Why do you believe the resulting Tidal Wave and Earthquake from crashing Vengeance into the bay or the Ocaen would be any less devastating then where it crashed? Plus, Enterprise would also likely crash, considering how badly damaged it is, with almost no mobility and running on fumes, which would add even more devastation.

First of all, MOS Superman has NO EXPERIENCE whatsoever. He's had no training, had NEVER been in a fight before, and was facing highly trained and battle hardened soldiers with superpowers bent on genocide two days after putting on the costume. I'm sorry, but he's going to make mistakes, that's what inexperience leads to. Arguing that he should instantly make all the right decisions is just ludicrous. Also, saying that he never tried to fly away is a gross simplification. He tries to fly up several times during the Smallville fight (if people had been paying attention, the they would have noticed that, and many did) and each time he gets pulled back down by Zod's forces. He COULDN'T fly away during the Metropolis battle because a. Zod had made it clear that his only goal by that point was to make Clark suffer by exterminating humanity, so if he had flown away, Zod would have killed everyone in the city instead of following him, and b. Zod never gave him the chance to fly away. Also, he surrenders himself twice to two different militaries in order to protect the people, spends years traveling the world helping people, that's how Lois tracked him to Smallville, and killed Zod to protect people. So please, spare me the whole "MOS was a betrayal of the character" speel because I'm not buying it.

Click to expand...

Except a small little show called Smallville dealt with Clark's inexperience far better. MoS was simply an excuse for action shot after action shot with stupid "twists" on the characters that took the MoS universe so far away from Superman, it's hard to call it a Superman film. There were too many scenes where any knowledgeable fan will go "Clark wouldn't do that..." "What the hell.. that isn't what Superman would do!" "Uhhh... really?".

I know very few long time Superman fans that loved MoS. It just wasn't a film that stayed true to the prior character or aura that had been built. It's the same reason why the more recent comics are failing horribly with fans... they just don't sit right with the mythology that had been built over nearly a century. Love or hate Superman Returns, at least it was true to the characters and purpose of Superman. MoS just made the character just another beat em up action hero.

This topic is a stark example of that... two very similar events in two movies and one is basically embraced while the other is dismissed. Star Trek Into Darkness took the tragic events and used them in the spirit and context Star Trek is known for. MoS did not. That's why the reactions are completely different from their respective fanbases.

Except a small little show called Smallville dealt with Clark's inexperience far better.

Click to expand...

And Smallville had over a hundred hours to deal with it as opposed to two-hours.

I know very few long time Superman fans that loved MoS. It just wasn't a film that stayed true to the prior character or aura that had been built.

Click to expand...

People say they want something new but then complain when the tiniest change is made.

Click to expand...

I've rarely heard that from Superman fans. In fact, with most big franchises, change is looked at as the biggest evil and not something to be desired. MoS took the complaint of "not enough action" in SR, decided to drop the main tenants of character and mythology in the Superman universe to simply build to an excuse to have nonstop action for nearly an hour. It was basically a Michael Bay film... all style no substance.

And if you don't like the Smallville example, just look at the first Reeve's film and how it handled the origin story then him being Superman. It's miles above MoS in every single regard. Hell, I'd argue the action scenes are a cut above MoS despite older tech and FX simply because they suppliment the character and the mythology instead of just being there for the pretty explosions. There is just so much wrong with MoS as a film in general, but add on the Superman name and you suddenly have an utter creatively bankrupt failure. There is a reason it opened huge and barely doubled that amount the rest of it's run.

I've rarely heard that from Superman fans. In fact, with most big franchises, change is looked at as the biggest evil and not something to be desired.

Click to expand...

Then what exactly is the point of putting out new product featuring the character/characters?

In my eyes, the character/universe in Man of Steel was recognizably Superman. I'm against completely upending a concept like turning Star Trek into a spy drama but you have to allow some room for variation, different creators handling the material and changes in society over decades . Or else you're just doing the same exact thing over and over and over.

There is a reason it opened huge and barely doubled that amount the rest of it's run.

Click to expand...

Say what? It's opening was $116.6M, and domestically alone, it made $291M. Domestically alone, it made 57M more than double it's opening, and only 58M less than 3 times it's opening. It's as close to tripling it's opening as it is to double, in no universe is that "barely doubling".

There is a reason it opened huge and barely doubled that amount the rest of it's run.

Click to expand...

Say what? It's opening was $116.6M, and domestically alone, it made $291M. Domestically alone, it made 57M more than double it's opening, and only 58M less than 3 times it's opening. It's as close to tripling it's opening as it is to double, in no universe is that "barely doubling".

Click to expand...

I misread and thought it said 136 opener. So it's a bit better... but still, for a franchise that even with SR managed decent mulipliers, this is disappointing. If MoS had been quality, it would have eclipsed 400 million... and it should have. But WOM was so poor that it limped to under 300 million and is now going to rely on Batman for the sequel... seriously, WB is already pulling out Batman knowing that this Superman cannot maintain itself.

And given that the choices for that new film and the choices they made in MoS, dont' be surprised when the returns for the sequel are even less. The WOM has just not been good enough to think MoS was anything other than a creative disappointment. And there are whispers that the financial success wasn't what they wanted either... but then expecting a billion worldwide was just stupid all around.

I have no problems whatsoever with how it played out in Into Darkness*, but I do like Jeyl's idea that right before Vengeance hits SF if suddenly the Enterprise would have swooped into the scene and pushed Vengeance down into the Bay with a tractor beam and stopped it from hitting buildings, all you would need was a quick cut back to the Enterprise with Sulu saying, "Whew, that was close one - good work with the tractor beam." then the scenes thereafter could have played out roughly the same. (It plays in my mind pretty similarly to how Enterprise destroyed Narada's torpedoes so they wouldn't hit the Jellyfish in ST'09.)

* = fully realizing that the message was that if you train terrorists to be your soldiers by proxy, don't be too surprised when they fly things into your buildings

Click to expand...

Why do you believe the resulting Tidal Wave and Earthquake from crashing Vengeance into the bay or the Ocaen would be any less devastating then where it crashed? Plus, Enterprise would also likely crash, considering how badly damaged it is, with almost no mobility and running on fumes, which would add even more devastation.

Click to expand...

Tidal waves and earthquakes? Earthquakes?

The Enterprise should have attempted everything to stop the Vengeance from crashing on Earth for one simple reason: antimatter. They just got lucky that it didn't ignite.

I have no problems whatsoever with how it played out in Into Darkness*, but I do like Jeyl's idea that right before Vengeance hits SF if suddenly the Enterprise would have swooped into the scene and pushed Vengeance down into the Bay with a tractor beam and stopped it from hitting buildings, all you would need was a quick cut back to the Enterprise with Sulu saying, "Whew, that was close one - good work with the tractor beam." then the scenes thereafter could have played out roughly the same. (It plays in my mind pretty similarly to how Enterprise destroyed Narada's torpedoes so they wouldn't hit the Jellyfish in ST'09.)

* = fully realizing that the message was that if you train terrorists to be your soldiers by proxy, don't be too surprised when they fly things into your buildings

Click to expand...

Why do you believe the resulting Tidal Wave and Earthquake from crashing Vengeance into the bay or the Ocaen would be any less devastating then where it crashed? Plus, Enterprise would also likely crash, considering how badly damaged it is, with almost no mobility and running on fumes, which would add even more devastation.

Click to expand...

Tidal waves and earthquakes? Earthquakes?

The Enterprise should have attempted everything to stop the Vengeance from crashing on Earth for one simple reason: antimatter. They just got lucky that it didn't ignite.

Click to expand...

Again, the Enterprise was trashed, could barely move and was limping power-wise and Vengeance dwarfed them. It's very likely, if they did catch up and tried that, they would've crashed as well, doubling the damage.

The Enterprise should have attempted everything to stop the Vengeance from crashing on Earth for one simple reason: antimatter. They just got lucky that it didn't ignite.

Click to expand...

I've always wondered why Voyager also didn't immediately blow up upon crashing in "Timeless" either, since six of her lowermost decks were said to have been compacted into one upon said crash landing, meaning the warpcore would have been completely destroyed.

The Enterprise should have attempted everything to stop the Vengeance from crashing on Earth for one simple reason: antimatter. They just got lucky that it didn't ignite.

Click to expand...

I've always wondered why Voyager also didn't immediately blow up upon crashing in "Timeless" either, since six of her lowermost decks were said to have been compacted into one upon said crash landing, meaning the warpcore would have been completely destroyed.

Click to expand...

Well Voyager was built to land on planets. Might be that those decks have been constructed with extra reinforcements.